a month ago setting out the government's view of this. they frequently stated the position there is no published, peer reviewed evidence of mortality but it is right to go on looking at this issu >> you've been watching prime minister's questions in the sense.h house of common it airs live on c-span 2 every wednesday 7:00 a.m. eastern and sunday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span. the british house of common sense will be out of session for a short week long recess. prime minister's questions returns wednesday, february 26 live on c-span 2 and you can video of past prime inister questions and other british public affairs programs on our website, c-span.org. the next "washington

journal," tevi troy discusses what jefferson read, ike watched, and obama tweeted culture at their time. followed by robert watson. look at how the role of first ladies have changed over the course of the american presidency. we'll talk to the archives at the university of oklahoma of thousands of commercials dating back to 1950s. patrick merit, the center's director. "washington journal" is live with your comments at 7:00 a.m. c-span. live on >> monday night, we conclude our ladies, influence & image" with a live two-hour program. artha washington to michelle obama. > she brings financial resources and managerial skishlgs makes mt. vernon an it possible makes for washington to be way for err

p eight years fighting a war. about abraham lincoln that she saw the otential and encouraged it and developed it. lessons in the dining room to power them up for washington political parties they had whether they invited a people.important yielded a lot of power, both he mr. lincoln and where was going. >> the career of president the velt is right from beginning. act ive in much more franklin roosevelt had polio. she would encourage him to political th his ambitions. "first leleidyes influence & image." start the evening with a

conversation and story with richard norton smith about the the ladies and contribution to the nation. live at 8:00. >> he wanted me in that position because i could handle it and he people to come into the supreme court room like they all do, by the hundreds of somebody say who's up there. nd somebody would say he's the solicitor general of the united states. negro.en he feels a he wanted that image. >> thurgood marshall served from 1965 to 1967. hear more from the justice as concludes the series of oral history interviews with former supreme justices friday at 4:00 on 91.timewashington

on c-span.org. next, form israeli the u.s., michael oren, he talked about the threat by he middle east posed iran's nuclear program, what's next for u.s. policy in the region? this is hosted by the atlantic council. it's an hour and 20 minutes. >> a great pleasure to welcome you all this afternoon.

this event welcomes the first public event around the international und security of the council. there are a lot of reasons why atlantic council were to bring israel's foreign ambassador to the u.s. starting february 1. we're getting him here shortly after he began at the council. the press release we si ulated late in january, said the following, quote, oren brings to the council a picture of the top historian's knowledge. highest level diplomats. and the best-selling author's skills. you'll see a taste of all of that in his opening and the q&a today. e's a person not only know how diplomacy would be

done and shouldn't be done. historical the context more richly than any known.dor you've ever we face a crucial moment in the history of the middle east. hear today ambassador oren is a creative sometimes box cative out of the thinker. this year, the council, address r oren will topics concerning the future role in the middle east along research on edge israel's relationship with other regional partners. first and foremost, please join ambassador oren. and second before i turn the him, thank you adrian adrian center for the arch atlantic center. of idea the pioneer the idea

ambassadors and presidents to the council. she supported two of them. she couldn't be here today, she sends her greetings. people in this audience to call attention to all of them. senior t ambassadors, officials from the u.s. government, officials from many of the embassies around town. for being here. so now to the program. we'll let michael start off and then initial questions and we'll turn to the audience. michael? >> thank you, fred. thank you for crediting me with ability to solve all of the middle east diplomatic problems.

thanks to the center on security and the atlantic council. be a part of to your extraordinary organization. director here at the center incomparable adrian art ho's not here but a great visionary and outstanding human being. elcome to the distinguished colleagues from the diplomatic community. some of you may know this. the middle east was an american intervention. alfred mber of 1902 by

meierman. his major concern was moving sea ways, d guarding guaranteeing access to trade. from days, trade extended the near east of greece and the alkans to the far east of japan, china, siam as it was known. passed through the suez canal and through arabia peninsula. -- nebraskanebraska a laws areas, man defined new term -- the middle east. t's the most distinct characteristic from the perspective of a geo strategist total absence of strategicic significance. he only strategic value of the middle east lay in its location. it was an area one had to cross standing of one area pof

importance to another. it would take a decade before navy realizing the ffordability and abundance of middle east oil decided to convert the fleet from coal to oil. it took another four years to world war ii before the american navy looked its thirst for energy. america's growing post war coincided with the collapse of the british and french empires in the middle east. the process to which america replaced the former colonial powers took place in a short period of time. you can announce it from the truman doctrine in 1947 to the suez crisis in 1936. coincided with the

advent of the cold war in the middle east. just as britain and france back the 1850s joined to stave off russian encroachments on the crimea in the middle east, so, too, the united states a century labor to prevent soviet encroachments in the middle east. ut the lines were never completely and fully drawn. algeria, syria, yemen, liberia. lagger heads. ometimes the saudis were at logger heads with jordan. arab-israeli project cut cross these lines though in theory it was a proxy war with the united states and the soviet

union. united states supporting israel. pitted aent points, it pro american israel versus a pro american jordan and saudi arabia. lines were not completely drawn. and yet -- and yet it was the war of 1973 that with d henry kissinger vision and drive to lay the oundations to what we can call the retrospect of pacs americana. keystone was egypt. sidot's move to signal the rapid decline of the soviet serious challenger in the merican hegemity middle east. it began with a 1979 peace treaty. this treaty established a

for a peace treaty between israel and jordan as 1993 oslo accords between israel and the palestine liberation organization. set the precedent for peace in erences, whether it be madrid or indianapolis. the people in the middle east accustomed to the assumption that only the united states could play the role of mediator. even pro states like syria would visits by secretary of state warren christopher in the s.90 it was extraordinary. and the soviet union isintegrated, so, too, did the military presence in the middle east. remember that great blue water soviet union back in 1973 that went eyeball to eyeball in the american fleet, ell, that virtually disappeared. and between the sixth fleet in he eastern mediterranean and the fifth fleet in the persian gulf, american military power the unchallenged with

xception of the ubiquitous rifle, american arms gradually soviet arms throughout the middle east and american predominated the. but paradoxically, though the americana ushered in decades of almost uninterrupted american very much it wasn't of a pax. it also inaugurated decades of military conflict in the middle east, something of hat you can call a 30-year war beginning in 1979 with the take the u.s. embassy in teheran and with the ill-fated in lebanontervention in the 1980s. libya and iran. kidnapping of american nationals. american missile attacks on the

and sudan, a proxy war in afghanistan followed by a real in afghanistan whichs is en route to becoming america's the region lict in after the bashry wars of the early 19th d centuries. middle all a part of the eastern wars in which the united states had various degrees of involvement. including the invasion of lebanon and the iraq-iran war. pax americana indeed. exacted an cts both from morale materiel in the united states. middle east enemies were hardly passive. middle eastern

errorists tried to carry out one ks on american sites not far from here. and one could make the case could be most effective in terms benefits, the most effective military operation in modern history. with a little training and four terrorists ne, 19 succeeded in killing 3,000 america and dragging into two wars that cost the united states well over 10,000 trillion and $1 left the american people very weary. a case could be made for citing the high water mark of the pax-americana. year later, a president bush created the united, comprised of the russia and u.n., the

the european union, the quartet, 30-year ed america's monopoly over middle east peacemaking. america's repeated inability to theeve peace in israeli and palestinians first under bush and the obama administration was symptom and a cause of the americana.the pax the other milestone in america's in this region are well known. t begins with the retreat from iraq, the looming withdraw from reluctance to e id syrian rebels trying to topple assad. the inability thus far to remove chemical weapons from syria. 94% of those weapons remain in place. of american g policy toward egypt, hastening nd celebrating the downfall of

mubarak, a close american friend for 30 years. brotherhood, he then a recall. obama erness for the administration to reach a solution to the nuclear issue great consternation of israel and other pro american governments in the region. the effects of sequestration on the ability to project power in the withdraw of the u.s.s. truman from the area. coldness to traditional allies such as bah rained the to show difference with saudi arabia, all the while the newfound independent from sources. leading al to take a role and in repelling al qaeda's libyan allies. the fading of president obama's

relationship e with turkish prime minister ardovan. on, but i won't. but i will say that like in abhors a opolitics vacuum. power vacuum has left by mid america's wake has pinion filled or tried to be filled by other countries. of the cornerstone pax-americana, while it's the u.s.-israel the relationship, something i'm familiar with. cornerstone of the pax-americana was the relationship. now egypt has been hosting military delegations from the russians. the chinese delegations have been circulated around the east.e the french stepped up to what they see is a vacant home plate east.e middle now, impressions in the middle cardinal.bsolutely

of the region if we agreeo poll them will not on anything. i'm willing to wager if you ask shiites, isrealies, irani jews, they would say that america's power in the iddle east is on the wing and the age of american pre-eminence is over. he house that henry built is tottering. distinguish, then, between an impression and reality. the middle sun in east indeed setting. here, the answer has to be far d.re nuance now the key to the future is technology. ith all due respect to russia, china, and france, american in nology remains stagnant

the middle east. old a can send a couple of destroyers but russia peals that the united states in the middle east still. mediation between israelis and palestinians and taking the vis-a-vis syria and iran, keeping in mind that on pax americana was heavy americana and light on pax, little has change in the middle east. for the fact that more killing sterners are each other. boots on ith viewer the ground or ships at sea, the killing a number of middle easterners as you know. war weariness, it would be a big mistake for the middle east to

target americans. premature to 's speak of a post americana. americana in the middle east but it is not too early to of a post middle east america distinguished between the two. the ll streamline commitments. to revisit old alliances while new ones. balk at that will acting as the exclusive policeman and fireman. that much may change. of us of a certain generation, freld, may remember from nd the withdraw vietnam and the iconic image of pushed offters being to the sea. back in 1975, america could and be the forces

confident that the vietcong follow going to americans down to l street in there's a d.c., sense and perhaps the america i encountered in my time of the here, that america could go home on the middle east, turn the back on the middle east, or pivot away from the middle east. that may prove illusionary. the middle east is not like vietnam. believe disengagement completely is possible. pax americana. right? >> wonderful introductory remarks.

will come back to post-pax americana and post middle back to ica and come that. before i do that, some in the you've might not know gone further back in history of the united states in the middle east. going back to 176. overview in the recent book power, faith, and u.s. y event of how the involvement in the middle east. go into if you could that in cliff notes versions here. that's why i asked for the cliff notes version. notes of the f cliff notes but the comparative between the middle east and the founding of the united states and how the u.s. influenced the

middle east development and at some point i think we'll also that has to do with the civil war and the statue of liberty. but let's start with the overview first? >> profound impacts on shaping another. he middle east was in the tally involved resolution. it's simple. i'm interested in the bashry wars. they were the first foreign wars hat america fought outside of its own borders against the middle easters, to a neetz yeah, morocco, algerialgeria. make a navy. they couldn't do that until they government to get taxes to raise a navy. if you go to the constitutional

state, the every bashry wars are there, page extraordinary. we can't have a navy, we're going to lose our foreign trade. the middle east fired the authorsions of american like herman melville and mark twain, freedom fighters like douglas and john f. kennedy. huge influence on mirko was the main exporter to the middle east. the u.s. was the main exporter to the middle east. it wasn't the oil, but education. n american university in beirut. american educators imparted american ideas.

there was the idea of nationalism and independence. those ideas percolated through educated classes. first through middle eastern anditions -- christians then men military. there is a direct link between america's iphones and then that the arabdeas and awakening. there was the struggle for arab state independent. there is a huge impact on the arab-isreali situation. bristol turned to take ourselves out of it. america can be traced back to involvement in the middle east. i believe it is underappreciated. >> we had a fascinating conversation before we came in.

i'm a great lover of historical anecdotes. you have to share to them with us if you would. impact of thethe civil war on the history of egypt. after that, perhaps that impact of egypt and the statue of liberty. [laughter] >> of the risk of sounding reductive, -- the american civil war, the north blockaded the south. that wasern cotton vital to the economy to britain and france was cut off. the only other place in the world that had cotton of a similar quality was egypt. the price of egyptian cotton went up 800 fold. they made a lot of money. in 1869, southern cotton québec. ajax and economy went bankrupt cotton went back up. the egyptian economy went bankrupt.

nine years later, he tried to take on israel in a war. we are still dealing with the outcome of that war. the west bank, gaza, jerusalem. do parallel to that has to with the military delegation that was sent. this chief of the u.s. military in the late 1860's. egypt wanted to modernize its armies and breakaway from empire. he turned to the u.s., and nice neutral power back then. sent some of his buddies who had been confederate officers to egypt. and went to egypt and modernized the egyptian army. they graded schools.

they imparted american ideas. nationalism cash they created -- they created schools. they imparted american ideas. nationalism. they're still doing it today. it back toce american involvement in the late 1860's. it talks about reductionism. egypt went bankrupt because of the return of southern cotton. ed .2 open a canal and put a beautiful statue at its entrance. n arabatue showed a woman holding a torch. they took on a brilliant french or to do this and then they ran out of money.

they brought it to new york, to an island at the entrance to the new york harbor. in a not have anyone to put together. they came in many parts. he remembered all of the american engineers, the civil war officers he had met in egypt. he brought them back from egypt to put together the statue of liberty. the statue of liberty concept in its construction were both related to america's involvement in the middle east. give you aant to little bit of a taste of what we have opened up that led to counsel to. to.he atlantic council [laughter] i'm sure the amazon numbers are going up even as we speak. fast forwarding it little bit to your comments on post-middle east america.

have a couple questions that we will go back and forth between the audience and myself. you talk somewhat about energy. perhaps you can go more deeper. talk about the role of energy and oil in the picture you're painting of pax americana in the middle east and the impact as you see it of the u.s. energy revolution. we ared that export -- facing another change in terms of our energy relationship with the region. i wonder if you can talk little bit about that. at the you look back history of presidential ,octrines about the middle east the northern percentage of all presidential doctrines issue through truman have to do with the middle east.

doctrine.t the carter have to do with protecting the free flow of energy of oil from the middle east. from the persian gulf region. whether it he from the threat of soviet encroachment or later , even from america's military engagements. -- you forgett that american warships were andng on iranian boats coastal installations. they have forgotten. this had to do with the protect american energy resources. over the decades, you can trace the percentage of america's oil consumption that was imported from the middle east. inthe time i came on my job 2009, it was 11% tiered very small. today it is almost negligible. the notion that america might have to exert force to protect

the free flow of energy out of that area today will be a far more remote function that it would be in the 1970's and 1980's. having said all that, that easternmean that middle energy is not vital to other countries in the middle east. that includes a country like china. america's economy is inextricably tied up with that of china. economy means deeply attached to middle eastern oil even though they are not importing it. it may not be a strategic issue, but it is certainly of financial interest. >> you do not see the energy as being significantly

shifting u.s. approach to the middle east. >> i think it will shift it tomorrow strategic interest than a financial interest. >> president obama in the state of the union are talking about the middle east to talk much about the transition that we were all focused on before the arab awakening. he talked more about nuclear iran and the peace negotiations and of course, syria. what is your view of how policy has evolved during the obama administration? strategy hideng this shift or how would you explain what we are watching? >> i think obama administration came out of the gate in 2000 and nine with a very robust -- in 2009 with a very robust and highly specific outreach to the middle east. when you look back at the cairo speech of june 2009, which in

many ways was the foundational document for the obama administration's outreach, it was perhaps the most generous policy. theamerican only instance i know of in which the president of the united states addressed adherence of a , or even going to rome and addressing the world efforts, but he went to cairo and adjust the muslim world. that was unusual. d a muslim world. i think that inadvertently islamist notion of states being a legitimate and there's only one true the legitimate stay in that is a universal muslim state. retrospect proved

less successful. aegon i see many -- you do not see many echoes of it. events in the middle east have simply outstripped the ability of just about anybody to formulate a cookie-cutter one policy fits all situation. events have transpired so rapidly and so radically in the middle east and so differently weatherby egypt or syria or bahrain or libya. i would challenge just about anyone to try to come up with a single policy to address all of these. having said that, there are points to criticize whether in syria egypt. in retrospect, in terms of america's image in the middle east, there probably should have

been a deeper breath taper for pressing for mubarak's removal. whether today thinking that if america had been involved in syria at an earlier stage, perhaps the jihadist imprint would have been preempted or lessened. all of that is what they call monday morning quarterback. it is monday and we're looking to saturday. let's look ahead. in -- and after this i will turn to the audience the pickup what people in the audience have on their mind -- what is at stake in negotiations with iran for the region and for the u.s. and for israel?

big, broad is a question. i will let you narrow that down. i wondering from your standpoint and if you -- and a historical view of what is at stake. >> everything. it is the future of the middle east. a tectonic shift -- again, whether in -- arepax americana mold the negotiations recognizing a certain hegemonic role for you ron in the region? hegemonicould that role look like from an israeli perspective or from the perspective of most golf countries? today there's a greater confluence of influence than any time in the last six decades.

they agree on eject or on that piece losses are sometimes on the fundamentals of the peace process. most of all, israel agrees on that you iranian threat. that an that maintains nuclear weapon, but the ability to make a nuclear weapon in a period of time presents an unsustainable threat. it is a threat that is a multi faceted. is it not just iran being able to put a nuclear warhead atop missiles it has that can hit any capitals in the region or any city. i just wanted video clip that the iranians put out of what they would do if they were threatened by israel and other countries. they showed the missile striking israel and american allies throughout the region.

that is the least of their threats. the biggest threat comes in the helpof providing nuclear to terrorist organizations that could either attack israel and other pro-marriage and countries in the region because those emissions would have to strike back at hezbollah. with that precipitate an iranian breakout? there would be an immense break on latitude. but beyond that, terrorist and have access to new their capabilities. you do not have to worry about rockets. you have to worry about nuclear ordinance being delivered through ship containers. it could be done through trucks. it is an entirely different magnitude of a threat. that is what is at stake for israel and other countries in the region. comeig religionists will

theig litanist may come at the --his this perios where period. israel does not have aircraft carriers. bombers. no b2 if the u.s. can strike an agreement with the iranians, israel and the gulf countries will have to ask themselves if this is something they can live with. america may be able to live with it. well countries in the region be able to live with that? it will be a tough decision. can you go through to parts of that decision? , what wouldeali they measure things go forward in this direction with the u.s.?

they could not just be a nuclear deal of some sort, but a normalization of relations or whatever that means. and then interestingly, one of the things you would do as atlantic council has worked on the relationship reaching israel and regional countries, how has the shift in already the relationship between israel and the gulf? with the barriers to closer relations that we know about, can those be removed and could one have a step change in this relations? >> one would hope so. those in just a very confluence today. more so than at any time in the past. intoer that translates more open relationships between the two remains to be seen. israel has had had relations of one type or another with several gulf states. most of them are quietly pursued. with other gulf states, it has been much at a distance.

been anylly hasn't formal contact. it is something that i think would be of interest of all of these countries to pursue. hopefully it can happen in the future. saying inyou were deciding whether they can live with whatever happens with iran, what are the factors one would gulfmeasure if you are a state? what are the factors one would have to measure from they israel standpoint and are there differences or are those factors pretty similar? have to see would material dismantling of the iranian nuclear program. time i can recall israel and that you iranians agreeing on an aspect of the iranian nuclear program is that the isreali spokespeople and

that iranian spokespeople came out and said that president obama's claim that parts of the iranian program had been dismantled in the interim agreement was not true. they actually agreed. yet the hard-pressed to see what parts were infected dismantled. hard pressed to see what parts were dismantled. only 100 and five kilograms of material -- 185 kilograms of material. that is not being dismantled. there are no facilities that are being dismantled. there no inspections at the military sites. they are getting to do inspections at the detonator sites. the largest military base access of be on the

inspectors. you have to see the material dismantling. get to see it of the centrifuges. you'd have to see the shipping abroad, a large segment or all of the three point five percent stock how -- stock fell into the shutting down of key facilities. there is a heavy water facility. it has to be some concrete evidence that that you iranians nuclear program has been defanged. .t would be very in vigorous >> lots of questions. i will try to get to everybody in the order that i see you. >> energy you policy research foundation -- energy policy

research foundation. of us fullynk a lot understand the technology and what is happening in north america. we can easily get to 2020 or access pallet he -- access. i'm curious whether you thought about how those rivalries may take place with the collapse of prices. this process of appearance between the reality of the u.s. strategic interest in the persian gulf, it is true that the western hemisphere is likely to disconnect from the crude flow, but it is also true the gulf is still important. if there's a major event of disruption, prices will still go up, even in the u.s. most of the adjustment to their

world's -- prices are ready had. hihgh.ready as a diplomat, how do we manage appearance versus reality? within the american political structure, we will hear more and more about the middle east. why do we had to worry about the middle east? we are disconnected. how do you manage that political phenomenon? >> i give a very short answered -- i agree. i agree with you. i have spoke mostly tonight about the impression of american power and the willingness to project our in the middle east. thattioned one at the end you can push the helicopters over the side and go home. that is an illusion. that thean illusion

security and strategic aspect of the flow of middle eastern oil will not impact of america's impact americao strategically. even though america's independence on the oil is very much on the land. >> here and there and then to decide. 1, 2, 3. >> thank you. i would like to suggest a may be slightly different narrative. i like your thoughts on it. how we come to the point where we have got to basically pace of to a number of strategic errors that were made in shaping u.s. policy? can we fail to see the long-term dangers of the spread of [indiscernible] i miss the significance of that? -- and missed the significance of that?

do we have an overly optimistic and basically false notion of the role that the muslim brotherhood my play -- might palay? -- play? is there some possible re-think to achieve through diplomatic means a just two state solution to the israeli-palestinian issue? at the time of the truman administration, the recognition of israel, the secretary of state marshall and the joint chiefs of staff warned about the dangers of partition and envision the u.s.'s role being reduced to military presence and losing a lot of leverage. my question is whether the u.s. is going through a kind of correction deep and fundamental misjudgment that formed u.s. policy over time and maybe we

are doing some corrections to come back and do something better? >> the first part of that, perhaps you could take a crack at the future of lyrical islam. -- political islam. are -- if youu have some historians view. >> i wish i had an hour and a half to respond. of course america has made mistakes in the middle east. countrye israel in any name has made mistakes in the middle east. part of the problem is being able to view the middle east not from the outside, but the inside. there is a great civil war in general who traveled the 1872 and said the

most remarkable remark and said -- if we judged by an american terms, we will be condemned to always misjudge this region. i want to respond on several levels. 1948, made all, number of predictions about the future american role in what was known as a palestine conflict. one was that the u.s. would have to center hundred thousand soldiers to defend the jewish state -- 300,000 soldiers to defend the jewish state. and that they would cut off the oil for the u.s. the jewish state would reemerge and would be aligned with the soviet union. all through this major predictions were wrong. thatan make a strong case rather than diminishing american

influence in the middle east -- in fact am america's involvement -arabe israeli-palestinian conflict has enhanced america's standing in the middle east. you can turn that argument on its head. did the u.s. underestimate the impact of political islam? yes. it is not just america. there is a strong tendency among the american press to downplay the emotional and intellectual power of islam. there's a basic journalistic narrative that people turn tog islam out of despair -- turn to islam out of despair. it is always downplayed. beyond that, every administration can come into office with its own worldview.

speech.k to the cairo president obama is addressing the muslim world and says you can be muslim, but if you are muslim and democratic and absorb democratic norms, that we have the basis for a strong alliance and a new relationship. look at the middle eastern leaders of from the president reached out in a significant way. who are these people? these are people who had authentic islamic groups. never much conform with the image of the cairo speech. was a good decision? maybe too early to tell. it is too early to now whether it was successful. it was administration's approach. i think demonstrations reaction was very significant.

. can go on about this i will include one anecdote. jo was get past pretty much the same question from any audience. toward the end of my term, somebody asked me the question that i have never received before. what is more difficult? sxplaining america to isreali or isrealis to americans? [laughter] difficult tore explain america to isrealis. israelns basically get except for the ethical questions. they get countries defending itself. i think many people look at the middle east and look at america andlook at the faith-based

value-based foreign policy and scratch their heads. they look at a piece of legislation. cannot support. a regime that -- wasn't that anti-democratic government but doesn't rule democratically? a do not get that. they had to explain that this is america. period of the winter of 2011 were people in were lookinghers at that than surrounding the beginnings of what was then called arab spring and saying, do you know where this will lead? americans and democrats and republicans and cnn and fox everybody was wildly

enthusiastic about what was going on back then. it was my job to explain to the policymakers that one million people were out in the streets of cairo and amending democracy from what was essentially a dictatorship. it resonates with the american narrator. americanso way that wouldn't get excited about it. america is what america is. this is something that was hardwired into the country. i happen to think it is a beautiful thing. it does not always readily understandable to people in the middle east. >> thank you. the united states has only limited resources. couldndering whether you identify whether there is a core conflict in the middle east that the u.s. could focus on in order

to bring security to the middle east. is it that iranian conflict or the -- what should the u.s. really focus on as that top point? >> so you were saying how should the u.s. set its priorities? three u.s. is caught in cyclones of instability right now. there is the ethnic cyclone of sunni and shiite. there's a cyclone of modernity versus tradition. and the cyclone of the breakdown of the arab state. look,ing on where you different cyclones are hitting. all threeyour got going on at the same time. that makes for a very violent situation. american policymakers out to look at which of these storms

withcan actually grapple and can make an impact on her lesson the damage of. in the case of syria, i do not know much more that the u.s. can do to further extend to monetary and a and to listen as much as possible of the suffering of the syrian people. in the case of egypt, there is modernity and tradition. i think that requires a deeper thought and whether the u.s. can impact that situation as well. paramountngly, the question and threat to the region is iran and its nuclear program. i will reiterate something i said earlier. when he -- whether any deal can be rich with the iranians, they need this program.

hegemonicor not just aspirations. there are two militaries in the world that divide the world into theaters of operation. one is of the u.s. military and the european command of african command and the iranian military. have lots of aspirations. be on that, they needed for survival. aesop what happened in libya. this odd happened in north korea. they drew conclusions from that. adding them to give up this program is very difficult. it is like it doesn't exist right now. a big if onthere's whether an agreement can be reach with the -- with the iranians. middle eastfrom the will have to determine whether they can live with that and what would happen if they do not. that is going to be i think paramount and of strategic

interest. answer.s for the clear great to have you with us today, sir. >> thank you, ambassador. there is an op-ed in the new york times today that you might have seen it picks up on some of the questions of u.s. leadership in the middle east and elsewhere. foradministration response looking at the things that we are doing in the middle east and in syria and the negotiations kerryran and secretary and the middle east project -- process. if you're not willing to project effortshe diplomatic may also not be seen that your see. if you look at this from a historic perspective, of course you can find a very concrete reasons for a perhaps a more

but if you look at it from a historical perspective, -- isolation is too big of a term. perhaps more inward looking and external production of power or is this something more herman and? you did a little bit that the last chapter on this assessment has not been written yet. >> thank you. tell.too early to we know historically that in the aftermath, the economic this location and the traumatic wars, there have been times of isolationism. not an exception. there's no way knowing whether this is a permanent alteration or a passing phase.

we do not know. what we do know him. we is that there's a direct connection from mecca's ability and willingness to project power, particularly in an area that middle east where people are sensitive to perceptions of power and america's ability to wield diplomatic influence. there's a lot of criticism of the bush policies, certainly after the invasion of iraq. in december of 2007 on very short notice, president bush was able to convene a peace conference in which more than 40 nations sent their top leaders in a matter of weeks. i asked myself whether that can to that extent and at that level of participation. you could say any number of criticism on the osha

administration policy. i think they made a case today ofing that though the waning the pax americana middle east is often traced to obama, i trace it back to the creation of the quartet. america unilaterally gave up its monopoly of the middle eastern peacemaking that began with the bush administration. power,s willing to use military power, and a massive scale in the middle east. that gave him a certain degree of leverage. i do not know if that exist today. transpired or didn't transpired surrounding the chemical arsenal in syria? the president said he would use force and the secretary said it would be a small use of force that turned out he went back to congress and the administration was very sanguine about congressional support. all calls in both parties said

it was some in light 500-1 against. doesn't it -- that sends an important message to the middle east to enforce it residentially red line was not what happened. -- enforce a presidentially red line was not going to happen. >> thank you very much. i hope you something about the palestinian issue. back.come >> thank you. >> it is fascinating that you went through the whole discourse without really mentioning much .bout the israeli-palestinian

even permitting the only part of the u.s. policy that is intensely engaged in the middle east at this time with the negotiations over palestine and israel. now that you're out office and free to speak your mind, you have done some of that. you could you tell us what kind of advice he would give to that government on how best to maneuver from now on? >> it is good to see again. i mentioned that the inability of a united states to bring about a resolution of the conflict or even aspects of it, i know that they were particularly fresh dated with don noted administration to maintain or his lead the settlement freeze. you have impaired america's influence and created a fugitive to that image of a waning pax americana in the middle east. that i did mention.

is avoiduld recommend policy steps that would impair and not just in the middle east, but in the world. most to and that exhaust all diplomatic options to target chief peace with the palestinians. measuresails, consider in the event of an inability of both sides to beach and negotiated permanent two state solution and think about ways of altering the status quo, perhaps unilaterally. unilateralism has gotten a have name since gaza in 2005. legitimatelyxtent, acquired the name. many mistakes are made back then. that doesn't mean that the

palestinian leaders have to make some immensely a folk confessions. israel is to make major concessions and take risk. if that proves incapable, i think israel can take measures damage tominimize the its reputation to maintain identity as a democratic and jewish state and also enable us to protect ourselves in the west bank or elsewhere. >> thank you for that question and the answer. over here and there and there. where i'mmy best of seeing people. >> virginity would help with that you riney and you could program it israel admitted it

does not have any nuclear weapons wouldn't it help if -- --ldn't it help if the isreal admitted it does not have any nuclear weapons? >> i think there's no chance that the policy will change in that way. i do not see the relevance of the question. america's has had thousands of nuclear weapons. it didn't protect the u.s. on 9/11. israel's capabilities are, it is not going to protect which if hezbollah, according to the head of intelligence last week, has summer of 70,000 rockets -- somewhere of 70,000 rockets.

what are the capabilities going to make a difference in that at all? israel is a tiny country. war ofks of a cold mutually assured destruction is completely irrelevant. especially dealing with a government in tehran that i do not think is rational in the way the soviet government was in the cold war. guess my answer to you is now. -- no. >> thank you. >> actually, i have two questions. they may take you back to when you mention that the involvement of the u.s. in the middle east may not be all bad.

this would be taken as positive and not negative. doesn't this have another flip side of being the only one response for the most capable player. it might be the focus of the attraction to attack the united responsiblethey are for [indiscernible] this is one question. the other is a but we do see [indiscernible] radicalth-based or -based popularity in the area that would be a threat to israel to some extent or the rainy threat? threat?an >> american engagement as the

key mediator in the israeli-palestinian dispute, does that render america more affordable to attacks by extremists? i think the record will show that america was potable to extremist elements even when it succeeding stunningly in the peace process. americans were the targets. was thenpeace process -- there'll be no storage of excuses for attacking the u.s. of excuses for attacking the u.s. it'd look at the record, it will show this. israel orbecause of u.s. --

thentioned some of terrorist attacks that it happened on american soil. the attempted attacks remain classified. byy were not impelled america's support for israel. it is because america is america. what it represents and what america is. as for the second question, what are the greater threats to israel? the iranian nuclear program. unequivocal. yeah people in egypt -- the up inl in egypt -- upheaval egypt and jordan have forced policymakers to rethink just about all of their assumptions it posed new east. challenges. a piece border used to be an open border.

they made high-tech fence along that border. they're building a similar one along the northern border. civil war could spillover. it cannot be ignored. the threat to jordan is perhaps the greatest single challenge facing israel that arises from the arab spring. jordan is vital to the israel's security. that is very important. all of that pales compared to the possibility that a regime that is on the record saying that the destruction of the and its part and parcel will acquire nuclear capabilities and it can be made

accessible and available to terrorist groups. a contrary were a nuclear arms race in the middle east in which they would find an unstable nuclear middle east. we would worry about nuclear arsenals. all of that overshadows anything that has over curt since winter 2011. >> think you. we will take his last two questions. i will take them one after another. >> thank you. following on your answer to the question about what advice you would give that isreali government in the peace negotiations now, do you think that isreali government is pursuing these negotiations with an actual role of a peace deal? do think the same is true for the palestinian leadership? do they want a deal to come out of this or is there value simply

in having a conversation and exceeding two demand that they do? >> go ahead. last question here. anyway -- can you wait? >> sure. you spoke at the beginning of the impact of defense on the u.s. how would you answer the question put in the following germany without piece done for u.s. interest in the past 50 years? back to the question about israel and palestinians. as ambassador, i participated in many rounds of the peace talks. certainly all of the meetings between the prime minister and

president obama and all the meetings between the prime minister and the secretary of state clinton and later secretary of state carry. -- kerry. economic assure you in the most emphatic terms that the prime movingr is committed to ahead and reaching a peace agreement and understands the price. there are certain points where the price becomes prohibited. netanyahu has also been very clear about what he leaves would constitute a prohibited price. when would be a two state solution that leads to jail's eastern border -- leads is rael's is important that has -- i do nota into think any country in history has faced the magnitude of the rockets that are poised at isreali neighborhoods today.

he is unwilling to let that happen on the west bank. the 10 jan that netanyahu is particularly adamant -- netanyahu is particularly adamant about recognition on israel as a jewish state. it is a requirement. without it, you have one state saying that palestine is a legitimate nation and recognizing that the isreali will not the record i state of the jewish people. it would open the door to endless -- it will not be a permanent peace. i think the support of the jewish state is a way you get to peace. people should understand it more deeply. on the palestinian side, for the palestinians for which i haven't directed, i think they are

sincere about reaching peace. on the palestinian side, and i tread lightly here, there is a greater question of not whether they're willing, but whether they are able. i say this as a historian who has looked at previous rounds of attempts to create a two state solution going back to 1937. history keeps repeating itself. froman even make a case 1979. time, offered to -- each no shortage that they thought it was a good idea to be able to do it. they were unable to deliver because that didn't represent the majority or they were threatened. ,he best example i can give you the summer 1967. two look atabout 80

creating this entity there and almost all of them said to the isreali interviewers we would love to have this, but we sign on the dotted line with you, we would be killed good the radicals they mention by name. scoot ahead to december 2000 said hel clinton -- he would love to sign on the dotted line, but couldn't rlc else he would be killed. a full circle. -- or else he would be killed. a full circle. there's no shortage of people even within the parties that would oppose to it. i sincerely believe that if it does to a referendum, israeli